3 ms·

When our current education system was first conceived (with the notable exception of universities), back during the industrial revolution (minor updates notwith

When our current education system was first conceived (with the notable exception of universities), back during the industrial revolution (minor updates notwithstanding), the goal was not producing capable citizens: The goal was to produce capable labourers. To a large extent, our education systems are still stuck in that "teach kids to behave, then teach them how to earn money" mentality. We keep kids away from their parents to allow them to earn money, and while we're in control of what the kids do for 5-8 hours a day, anyway, we should turn them into the employees we'll need 10 years from now. And that is where your statement, though technically correct, is (I imagine unintentionally) little misleading. Schools have been turning out people like this for the past 2 centuries, because for people who have no influence on the political process, the more fundamental skills of critical thinking, creativity and scepticism are simply not required. If you're a salesman, a nurse or a factory worker without the right to vote, you don't need to be able to form an opinion on the best way to recover from an economic depression. So these are incidental skills: usually not actively discouraged, but by and large not aimed for. The kicker is, you do need those skills in order to participate effectively in a democracy that's better than "watch a lot of television and vote for the man in the best suit once every four years". Over the past 100 years, we've moved away from excluding people from suffrage (mostly). This means that it's not just the (relatively) well-educated white male bourgeoisie that needs to have critical thinking skills. It's everyone. Our education system has not yet adapted to this 'new' reality. It still aims for capable workers, not capable citizens. Our education system is vastly better than it was 150 years ago, but our standards have gone up even further.

pron 14y ago
By having a "reasoned debate" about the very purpose of critical thinking, you are falling into the same trap by discounting the importance of emotions and irrationality in people's decisions. It's not only that critical thinking is not required -- it can often be undesirable. This is a quote from Paul Krugman: Last year the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical thinking skills,” because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignora... He is critical of this conservative mode of thought, but these are values that can have merit. Jonathan Haidt discusses that: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.ht...
- ordinary 14y ago
  You're confusing two statements: "emotions and irrationality play a big role in people's poltics" and "emotions and irrationality should play a big role in people's politics". The former is undoubtedly true. I hope no one would argue against being rational and objective in matters of, say, world economics or armed conflict. If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking, if democracy is to survive. Carefully considering the arguments for and against political statements is a good thing. I (again) hope no one would argue against that. However, I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal. There's nothing in theories of critical thought that's inherently opposed to conservative values. I do not believe critical thinking is a drive towards any particular school of political thought. It is a drive towards knowledge.
  - pron 14y ago
    > You're confusing two statements: "emotions and irrationality play a big role in people's poltics" and "emotions and irrationality should play a big role in people's politics". The former is undoubtedly true. I hope no one would argue against being rational and objective in matters of, say, world economics or armed conflict. Actually, there's another question that should be asked: Is conducting ourselves rationally even possible? If not -- the question whether we should be rational might become moot. There is no doubt that some of our decisions can be, and are, rational. But could all of them be rational? Are humans capable of being 100% rational? I think the answer is a resounding no. In that case the problem shifts from being binary to a question of degree. To what degree are we, or should we be rational? > If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking I'm not so sure about that either. If every question could have a rational answer, would you like our affairs to be handled by a rational artificial intelligence? Issac Asimov discussed this, and he, too, points in the negative direction. The question of rationality becomes irrevocably complex when you start asking what is our goal. If our goal is to maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering, then, clearly, we wouldn't even be able to agree on concrete missions as happiness and suffering are both subjective. Some people would place honor ahead of survival. If we can't even place a value on the most basic of ideals -- life -- what hope do we have of assigning value to lesser ones? For example, the protagonist of Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground derives joy from being spitefully irrational and from taking actions that cause him harm. Spite is what gives him happiness. How could you reconcile this very human need for spite with rationality? > I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal. You are right, but I think conservative thinking clashes with rationality more often. By its very nature, conservatism places importance on held beliefs and is less open to changing values based on new findings. Liberals tend to think that human existence is a solvable problem given enough information and enough analysis.
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Sure, education can and should be improved. I'm not sure about the "skills we need 10 years from now;" that sounds good but seems like a different issue. The type of knowledge and thinking skills required to be a "rightly informed citizen" or whatever you want to call it are really not much different from Socrates' or before. However, educating the masses is no simple task. As for skills 10 years from now .. how about we aim for the fundamentals first then worry about the other stuff. This reminds of a similar discussion we've had on HN about everyone needing to learn to program and that programming knowledge provides critical thinking skills that will, if everyone was a programmer, allow there to be peace and harmony in the state or something. I don't know if you are going down that road so I don't want to beat it up here but having, simply, programming skills does not necessarily make one better at thinking about philosophical or political issues. There are plenty of programmers that think the Tea Party makes sense. I think even this reasonwell stuff shows where programmers can tend to treat problems simplistically and try to use ideas and concepts currently in vogue in programming culture (social networking, upvotes, etc) to solve political debates. Anyway, as far as people needing to better equipped, intellectually, in a democracy, I agree but I don't know how you get there; I don't think the solution is in slight changes to the curriculum, I certainly don't think the idea that is currently in vogue on HN, to dump college, is going to get you there (where "there" is greater than 95% if the populace discussing issues with philosophical rigor).

pron 14y ago

By having a "reasoned debate" about the very purpose of critical thinking, you are falling into the same trap by discounting the importance of emotions and irrationality in people's decisions. It's not only that critical thinking is not required -- it can often be undesirable. This is a quote from Paul Krugman: Last year the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical thinking skills,” because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignora... He is critical of this conservative mode of thought, but these are values that can have merit. Jonathan Haidt discusses that: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.ht...

ordinary 14y ago
You're confusing two statements: "emotions and irrationality play a big role in people's poltics" and "emotions and irrationality should play a big role in people's politics". The former is undoubtedly true. I hope no one would argue against being rational and objective in matters of, say, world economics or armed conflict. If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking, if democracy is to survive. Carefully considering the arguments for and against political statements is a good thing. I (again) hope no one would argue against that. However, I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal. There's nothing in theories of critical thought that's inherently opposed to conservative values. I do not believe critical thinking is a drive towards any particular school of political thought. It is a drive towards knowledge.
- pron 14y ago
  > You're confusing two statements: "emotions and irrationality play a big role in people's poltics" and "emotions and irrationality should play a big role in people's politics". The former is undoubtedly true. I hope no one would argue against being rational and objective in matters of, say, world economics or armed conflict. Actually, there's another question that should be asked: Is conducting ourselves rationally even possible? If not -- the question whether we should be rational might become moot. There is no doubt that some of our decisions can be, and are, rational. But could all of them be rational? Are humans capable of being 100% rational? I think the answer is a resounding no. In that case the problem shifts from being binary to a question of degree. To what degree are we, or should we be rational? > If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking I'm not so sure about that either. If every question could have a rational answer, would you like our affairs to be handled by a rational artificial intelligence? Issac Asimov discussed this, and he, too, points in the negative direction. The question of rationality becomes irrevocably complex when you start asking what is our goal. If our goal is to maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering, then, clearly, we wouldn't even be able to agree on concrete missions as happiness and suffering are both subjective. Some people would place honor ahead of survival. If we can't even place a value on the most basic of ideals -- life -- what hope do we have of assigning value to lesser ones? For example, the protagonist of Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground derives joy from being spitefully irrational and from taking actions that cause him harm. Spite is what gives him happiness. How could you reconcile this very human need for spite with rationality? > I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal. You are right, but I think conservative thinking clashes with rationality more often. By its very nature, conservatism places importance on held beliefs and is less open to changing values based on new findings. Liberals tend to think that human existence is a solvable problem given enough information and enough analysis.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

Sure, education can and should be improved. I'm not sure about the "skills we need 10 years from now;" that sounds good but seems like a different issue. The type of knowledge and thinking skills required to be a "rightly informed citizen" or whatever you want to call it are really not much different from Socrates' or before. However, educating the masses is no simple task. As for skills 10 years from now .. how about we aim for the fundamentals first then worry about the other stuff. This reminds of a similar discussion we've had on HN about everyone needing to learn to program and that programming knowledge provides critical thinking skills that will, if everyone was a programmer, allow there to be peace and harmony in the state or something. I don't know if you are going down that road so I don't want to beat it up here but having, simply, programming skills does not necessarily make one better at thinking about philosophical or political issues. There are plenty of programmers that think the Tea Party makes sense. I think even this reasonwell stuff shows where programmers can tend to treat problems simplistically and try to use ideas and concepts currently in vogue in programming culture (social networking, upvotes, etc) to solve political debates. Anyway, as far as people needing to better equipped, intellectually, in a democracy, I agree but I don't know how you get there; I don't think the solution is in slight changes to the curriculum, I certainly don't think the idea that is currently in vogue on HN, to dump college, is going to get you there (where "there" is greater than 95% if the populace discussing issues with philosophical rigor).